Forum Replies Created
It was sent to the email address supplied when you first registered on Nov 2. It could be that our system is not forwarding properly.
Send me your preferred email address to cxxxxxxxxx. We will take down this address in a couple of days since it will be a spam magnet.
- This reply was modified 2 years ago by Lex. Reason: Address taken out after a week to prevent spamming
We had some spam issues with the site that was used for downloading. I will email it to your address that you used to register tomorrow.October 29, 2018 at 1:07 pm in reply to: obligatory share in inheritance vs. act of donation #4080
Understanding? Does that mean nothing was stated in the Donation and there is nothing in writing about the agreement?
In 2016 it was changed somewhat https://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=107384
The 2018 regular session: https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/BillSearchList.aspx?srch=s
You should start with a request -verbal and then in writing. If the encroachment persists, it can be a small title problem when and if you go to sell the house. Usually, a buyer will stipulate in writing that they will not object -but some people do, especially if they want an easy way out of the sale.
You may need to prove the encroachment. Be prepared to get a survey done clearly showing exactly where the fence lies on your property. You should probably start there. A house I bought recently had a protracted lawsuit on this issue and there were actually physical assaults involved.
I can tell you that in a similar case everyone just gave up trying to contact everyone (or even figure out who “everyone” might be.) The ones they did contact about doing a partition or having their share bought out were suspicious and no matter what the deal, figured they were getting cheated out of something they were not even aware existed prior to contact.
Now, the perhaps easiest thing here is counter-intuitive: stop paying the taxes. Then go in at the tax sale and be the high bidder. There are downsides to this and you should see a lawyer before taking this route.
Sorry, I didn’t notice there was a follow-up.
Yes, you can do what you want with a trust. Anything you can imagine, as long as it is not illegal or against public policy, can be done.
Just call us at 727-0778 and we’ll set you up.
This is an immensely complicated area of the law.
One thing that makes it complicated is that a good bit of it makes no sense to the average person. For example, why would a person buying a piece of property without knowing that a gas station once was located on the property be responsible for the “remediation” necessary to dig up the old tanks and for paying huge amounts for environmental engineers and support workers to clean up and certify that the site was safe?
So, we who participate in trying to answer questions on this site would be hard-pressed to offer much help. I would say for starters to work with a realtor to start looking at environmental specialists to see what potential liability there is. That could be lawyers specializing in this area as well as engineers who can perform some environmental testing or at least advise whether that would even be required.
But the bottom line is this: once you own the property you are responsible. You may or may not have recourse against the seller if a problem crops up -but it is much easier to address all of this prior to the purchase. On the legal side, you can also try to build in as much protection as possible in the sales contract.
You can certainly set up your own trust and your husband would not need to be involved.
A trust would add another layer of protection that would fit in with the purposes of a prenup. In other words, keeping assets for each partner separate, protected and destined to go that that spouse’s children (if that is what is desired.)
So, certainly a trust that would qualify as a special needs trust that protects the beneficiary from losing government assistance, whether existing or needed in the future, would be the best course.
A trust would replace your olographic (that is the way it is spelled in Louisiana) will. Olographic wills can be problematic anyway since they are easier to attack than a notarial will. Trust a generally harder still to attack.
You can request a particular attorney, did you have someone in particular in mind?
OK, first I think you are referring to Medicaid, not Medicare. It is a common mistake, but they are different programs in every respect.
Secondly, Medicaid has the right to recover against property in a succession if the deceased person received Medicaid benefits prior to death. In almost all cases that would be nursing home care.
The right to recovery is against whatever interest the deceased person who received benefits had. So, the answer to your question is yes in some respects and no in others.
So, the problem is that a claim against a partial interest in a home effectively kills good title and interferes with everyone’s interest. Does that make sense?
On the other hand, if Medicaid did not actually pay out money for the care of the deceased, then they would have not claims against anyone.
Just to add to this interesting topic, it used to be common for politicians to know, for example, where a certain bridge was going to be build across the Mississippi. The politician would then buy up all the land where the bridge was going but use someone else’s name on the sale (for obvious reasons). A counter-letter would also be prepared saying who the real owner (the politician) was. The counter-letter would not be recorded. As Oliver Hardy would say: “And no one will be the wiser”.
For those searching on the topic of Small Succession, it is:
An estate with a gross value of $75,000 or less with no will. It can even include real estate.
If all the heirs agree, a one-page affidavit can be prepared and no court gets involved.
Maybe some harsh love starting with a criminal complaint?
It would be hard to say who is responsible for what as far as the junk yard liability. That could depend on whether it was reasonable for them to think the car belonged to your grandson.
One thought that comes to mind is to get all the heirs to agree to re-pay you pro-rata from the proceeds. It is an exceptionally small amount of money in the scheme of things -so you would not think that would be a problem for them.
It is too bad that a succession had to be started before it was known what the bank was going to do.
I hate to bring this up at this time, but a succession was never necessary. A Small Succession Affidavit could have been done which would have required the bank to turn over the account to the heirs. That can even be done without a lawyer and the courts are not involved.
And also, an administrator is entitled by law to a 2.5% fee and can ask for more.